NOTES:
" The general rule did not apply
Tanada v Tuvera
FACTS:
Due process was invoked by the petitioners in demanding the disclosure of a
number of presidential decrees which they claimed had not been published
as required by law. The government argued that while publication was
necessary as a rule, it was not so when it was "otherwise provided," as when
the decrees themselves declared that they were to become effective
immediately upon their approval.
Court demanded for publication. Questions however arises, Distinction
between laws of general applicability and those which are not, publication
means complete publication and that the publication must be made at
Official Gazette.
…that the clause "unless it is otherwise provided" in Article 2 of the Civil
Code meant that the publication required therein was not always imperative;
that publication, when necessary, did not have to be made in the Official
Gazette…
Sol Gen stated …that issuances intended only for the internal administration
of a government agency or for particular persons did not have to be
'Published; that publication when necessary must be in full and in the
Official Gazette…
After a careful study of this provision and of the arguments of the parties,
both on the original petition and on the instant motion, we have come to the
conclusion and so hold, that the clause "unless it is otherwise provided"
refers to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of publication
itself, which cannot in any event be omitted. This clause does not mean that
the legislature may make the law effective immediately upon approval, or on
any other date, without its previous publication.
Publication is indispensable in every case, but the legislature may in its
discretion provide that the usual fifteen-day period shall be shortened
or extended. An example, as pointed out by the present Chief Justice in his
separate concurrence in the original decision, 6 is the Civil Code which did
not become effective after fifteen days from its publication in the Official
Gazette but "one year after such publication.
because it was "otherwise provided.
It is not correct to say that under the disputed clause publication may be
dispensed with altogether. The reason. is that such omission would offend
due process insofar as it would deny the public knowledge of the laws that
are supposed to govern the legislature could validly provide that a law be
effective immediately upon its approval notwithstanding the lack of
publication (or after an unreasonably short period after publication), it is not
unlikely that persons not aware of it would be prejudiced as a result and
they would be so not because of a failure to comply with but simply because
they did not know of its existence, Significantly, this is not true only of penal
laws as is commonly supposed. One can think of many non-penal measures,
like a law on prescription, which must also be communicated to the persons
they may affect before they can begin to operate.
We note at this point the conclusive presumption that every person knows
the law, which of course presupposes that the law has been published if the
presumption is to have any legal justification at all. It is no less important to
remember that Section 6 of the Bill of Rights recognizes "the right of the
people to information on matters of public concern," and this certainly
applies to, among others, and indeed especially, the legislative enactments of
the government.
The term "laws" should refer to all laws and not only to those of general
application, for strictly speaking all laws relate to the people in general albeit
there are some that do not apply to them directly. An example is a law
granting citizenship to a particular individual, like a relative of President
Marcos who was decreed instant naturalization. It surely cannot be said that
such a law does not affect the public although it unquestionably does not
apply directly to all the people. The subject of such law is a matter of public
interest which any member of the body politic may question in the political
forums or, if he is a proper party, even in the courts of justice. In fact, a law
without any bearing on the public would be invalid as an intrusion of
privacy or as class legislation or as an ultra vires act of the legislature. To
be valid, the law must invariably affect the public interest even if it might be
directly applicable only to one individual, or some of the people only, and t
to the public as a whole.
…administrative rules and regulations must a also be published if their
purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid
delegation…

Only the imperative regulations and those merely internal in nature that is
regulating only the personnel of an agency need not be published…
Accordingly even the charter of a city must be published…

However no publication is required for instructions of ministers on the case

studies to be made in petitions for adoption or the rules laid down by the
head of government re assignments of his personnel…

Mere publication of title and date of effectivity since substantial information

is what is needed…

There is much to be said of the view that the publication need not be made
in the Official Gazette, considering its erratic releases and limited
readership. Undoubtedly, newspapers of general circulation could better
perform the function of communicating, the laws to the people as such
periodicals are more easily available, have a wider readership, and come out
regularly.

Laws must come out in the open in the clear light of the sun instead of
skulking in the shadows with their dark, deep secrets. Mysterious
pronouncements and rumored rules cannot be recognized as binding unless
their existence and contents are confirmed by a valid publication intended to
make full disclosure and give proper notice to the people. The furtive law is
like a scabbarded saber that cannot feint parry or cut unless the naked
blade is drawn.